Article: Kristian Campbell Could Use Some Time In Worcester

[Old Red]

5 minutes ago, notin said:

Of course all errors are not the same.  But they are all worth the same when you use fielding percentage.

Not sure why you’re blathering on about eye test won a play clearly being described for you, but your eye test needs glasses if it saw Bregman in that play.

There are two issues with errors - some guys opinion blah blah blah.  But more important, they’re not meant to measure fielding ability; they’re meant to explain baserunners.  Using errors and fielding percentage to evaluate a fielder’s defensive skills is like using wild pitches to evaluate a pitcher’s control…

I didn’t need the play described for me at all,  because I watched it, but the fact the play was described at all was, because of the eye test.🤭🙈

[TedYazPapiMookie]

3 hours ago, Old Red said:

Not all errors are the same. You could look at the box score from last nights game, and see that Duran was charged with an error, but if you watched the game the good old eye test told you what happened. The eye test can tell you so much such as Bregman could very easily have two more throwing errors charged to him that the eye test showed you, but the official scorer awarded the batter a hit that even had the Yuckers in the NESN booth befuddled, so  I agree fielding percentage isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, and there different kind of errors that the eye test if available can differentiate.

Just about everything in baseball can be second guessed.  It should still all come back to the simple concept of what percentage of the time did the fielder get the out.  By hitting the runner, there was no out.  When Bregman or Devers in the old days didn't get an out on a ball hit to them and the score keeper gave the batter a hit, they created a floor fielding percentage. 

There are three possible results on a play:

1 - An out

2 - An Error

3 - A misplay that is considered a hit

Fielding percentage is the accepted stat calculated by dividing OUTS over Total Chances.

That number represents the BEST success rate of the player at his position.

If you subtract misplays from OUTS and divide it by Total Chances you have the player's worst fielding percentage because you assume EVERY ball hit to him should have been an out. 

Until someone starts reviewing every play where no out is made all we can do is assume a range that represents the fielding percentage of a player.  This can easily be corrected with today's technology and the error review process would render more accurate fielding percentages.  As of today, the best case is you can conclude that the fielding percentage in the books is over estimated.  To what degree, we won't know until the MLB defines standards for errors and assesses all historical and future plays determining errors against a standard set of rules.  That's why when you see a guy like Devers make 38 misplays and 14 errors in 2022 you laugh at the fact that he got 38 favorable calls by the score keepers and still didn't finish as a league average defender.  If 50% of the misplays were measured against a standard and found to be errors his fielding percentage in 2022 would drop from .964 to .920.  Most players don't have as many misplays as Devers did so the ceiling fielding percentage and the floor fielding percentage does not have as great of a span as it did with Devers.  

You are 100% correct that fielding percentage is not recorded as accurately as possible and I hope someday that the inefficiency in recording it is corrected by the MLB. 

On the other side of the coin, you have metrics which fabricate components of the estimates, and they are sold to the public as if they are stats not just guesses.  Normalization techniques are used throughout society to estimate lots of things.  As long as people understand that the estimates have no certainty, they are simply one person's (company's) guess at trying to create data that might represent what a player did but not necessarily.  If the public understand that these are guesses then metrics are kept in perspective.  The second someone thinks the estimates stand for a certainty, metrics become a myth.  They are estimates. 

Fans can believe them or not.  With Fielding Percentage there is a range of accuracy based on the out/no out criteria.  In metrics, there is complete uncertainty since a major portion of the calculation is based on averages that may or may not fairly represent actual game situations.  Therefore, there is far LESS certainty in metrics than the range of the stat Fielding Percentage.  Nothing is perfect and fans can support either, but they should at least know that all metrics are guesses, predictions not certainties.

 

[illinoisredsox]

1 hour ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

Firecracker?  Here is some free advice.  Stop with all the insults and start writing about baseball.  It will be sign of maturity.  If you disagree, just say so without an insult.  That's how adults discuss baseball.

FYI... I do what I need to do to slow the cyber bullying that goes on here.

This site is only as good as the participants who write about baseball here.  Clearly, the anonymity makes many very brave and aids in the ignorance with which they respond.  Thanks for being a prime example.

I just want to say thank you for providing some comedic relief via your recent posts; it’s been a tough go for many of us while the team is struggling.

[notin]

1 hour ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

Just about everything in baseball can be second guessed.  It should still all come back to the simple concept of what percentage of the time did the fielder get the out.  By hitting the runner, there was no out.  When Bregman or Devers in the old days didn't get an out on a ball hit to them and the score keeper gave the batter a hit, they created a floor fielding percentage. 

There are three possible results on a play:

1 - An out

2 - An Error

3 - A misplay that is considered a hit

Fielding percentage is the accepted stat calculated by dividing OUTS over Total Chances.

That number represents the BEST success rate of the player at his position.

If you subtract misplays from OUTS and divide it by Total Chances you have the player's worst fielding percentage because you assume EVERY ball hit to him should have been an out. 

Until someone starts reviewing every play where no out is made all we can do is assume a range that represents the fielding percentage of a player.  This can easily be corrected with today's technology and the error review process would render more accurate fielding percentages.  As of today, the best case is you can conclude that the fielding percentage in the books is over estimated.  To what degree, we won't know until the MLB defines standards for errors and assesses all historical and future plays determining errors against a standard set of rules.  That's why when you see a guy like Devers make 38 misplays and 14 errors in 2022 you laugh at the fact that he got 38 favorable calls by the score keepers and still didn't finish as a league average defender.  If 50% of the misplays were measured against a standard and found to be errors his fielding percentage in 2022 would drop from .964 to .920.  Most players don't have as many misplays as Devers did so the ceiling fielding percentage and the floor fielding percentage does not have as great of a span as it did with Devers.  

You are 100% correct that fielding percentage is not recorded as accurately as possible and I hope someday that the inefficiency in recording it is corrected by the MLB. 

On the other side of the coin, you have metrics which fabricate components of the estimates, and they are sold to the public as if they are stats not just guesses.  Normalization techniques are used throughout society to estimate lots of things.  As long as people understand that the estimates have no certainty, they are simply one person's (company's) guess at trying to create data that might represent what a player did but not necessarily.  If the public understand that these are guesses then metrics are kept in perspective.  The second someone thinks the estimates stand for a certainty, metrics become a myth.  They are estimates. 

Fans can believe them or not.  With Fielding Percentage there is a range of accuracy based on the out/no out criteria.  In metrics, there is complete uncertainty since a major portion of the calculation is based on averages that may or may not fairly represent actual game situations.  Therefore, there is far LESS certainty in metrics than the range of the stat Fielding Percentage.  Nothing is perfect and fans can support either, but they should at least know that all metrics are guesses, predictions not certainties.

 

There are other outcomes. A fielder’s choice where the runner is safe, for example.  Happens every day.

Errors are more about explaining baserunners runners  or runners taking extra bases.  They’re not really about fielding.  A fielder can misplay two identical grounders, but Hitter A is much faster than Hitter B and beats the throw. So the misplay is only an error because Hitter A can run faster? That’s not a good way to assess fielding…

[Hitch]

2 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Equating someone's spelling ability to baseball knowledge is worse than childish.

The weird thing is, he seemed to be set off by the fact I put ROTY in there instead of ROY (God forbid), more than my spelling per se. My spelling is pretty damn good. 😎 My dyslexia, however, is about as bad as it gets. Not so good.

[moonslav59]

9 minutes ago, Hitch said:

The weird thing is, he seemed to be set off by the fact I put ROTY in there instead of ROY (God forbid), more than my spelling per se. My spelling is pretty damn good. 😎 My dyslexia, however, is about as bad as it gets. Not so good.

It does seem weird that they include the "O" of of, but not the "T" for the.

[moonslav59]

I'm glad we kept KC on the 26.

[Kimmi]

20 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

I'm glad we kept KC on the 26.

Perhaps he and Story are both breaking out of their slumps?

[moonslav59]

28 minutes ago, Kimmi said:

Perhaps he and Story are both breaking out of their slumps?

It's hard for me to seperate my hopes and my projections, sometimes.